thenelli01

You don’t know me well enough and haven’t spoken to me long enough to know whether or not I have a standard of rights.

I know there are a lot of abortion topics on this site, apologies if this is a duplicate - I didn't want to get lost in an old thread and didn't want to read through all of the old topics.
I wanted to get some thoughts on this.
For an argument against late term abortion and birth as the clear line: there is a point, maybe around 6 months(ish), where a mother has a moral (and legal - ideally) obligation to carry out the pregnancy, given that her health isn't at risk. At around 6 months (ish) or however far along the process it is determined, the fetus is developed enough to be considered human - it experiences consciousness, feelings, could live outside of the mother at this time if given the opportunity, etc. At this point, the mother has a responsibility to carry out the pregnancy because it is by her action that the cells were able to develop inside her body to the point where it actualized into a human being deserving of rights. Although it is the mother's body and she has the right to do what she wishes with it, she does not have the right to kill another human being after initially extending an invitation (I mean this metaphorically, though I suppose it will be a point of contention, especially using the word invitation). The fetus is "trespassing" at this point, but that does not give her the right to kill it when it depends on her for life. She had a responsibility to abort the cells before it developed to the point of a human being deserving of rights.
I liken this to when you invite someone on a boat and travel into the ocean. You are cannot get upset with them in the middle of the ocean and claim that they are trespassing as it is YOUR boat and demand that they get off your property (i.e. jump in the ocean, leading to their death).  In the same fashion, you cannot demand a fetus get removed from your body after you have implicitly invited them through inaction.
I'm not stuck on this argument, I just was thinking about it and wanted to get some thoughts. 

I used to believe in God, and study the Bible, when I was very young. I don't look at it as "lost time" at all. In fact, those were some of the most intellectually productive years of my life. I didn't just read the Bible, I also read Dostoevsky and several other Christian authors,  but it was all connected to my faith, and it was all very much productive and worthwhile. I highly recommend crazy ol' Fyodor. Every single thing he ever wrote is genius. Insane (or maybe just insanely pessimistic) on some level, but he cuts to the essence of things on every other level. So does Nietzsche (who is very much Christian, and a fundamentalist at that, in his critique of the Church, though he's nowhere near as sophisticated as Dostoevsky). So does most of the Bible, as do some other religious texts.
There's a lot you can learn from religion, when you're really young. You can even learn some stuff from it when you're old. The main things wrong about the Bible are the (occasional) altruism and the supernatural God part. Most of everything else makes quite a bit of sense, and is well worth studying. When you study the Bible, you're studying thousands upon thousands of years worth of human experience. And even the supernatural God part can just be interpreted as a metaphor for reality, and you're fine (well, it's more complex than that, it involves the context of knowledge people had before science was a thing, but there's no reason to get into that here).
Thing is, this is all off topic. The thread is about the loss of a literal God. There's no loss there, because there's no literal God.

Well, this is interesting... technically speaking the “loss” of investment was ongoing... its discovery is much delayed and thus can be quite shocking if many years and much effort, thought, and feeling were wasted.  I’m not well versed enough in psychology to judge whether discovery of loss of investment can possibly cause the emotion of grief.  I usually associate grief as the process of coming to grips with a type of loss which is something more psychologically fundamental than a loss of investment... something loved or cherished .... but I don’t know... it’s an interesting dimension to consider. 

What do you mean? Calling Nietzsche a Christian in his critique of the church is one of the most controversial things you can say about him, so I'm wondering what you mean.
That's regret. Grief is an emotion about the loss of value, and wishing you had it. Regret is about lost opportunity (or a failed opportunity), and in this context, wishing you never held god as a value. Coming to realize the parts that made you feel bad or miserable is a matter of overcoming and taking those experiences to become something better than you were. Sometimes, in the case of god, there were some really great values and insights more than likely, but you can take it as a path towards further understanding of reality. That's why a person shouldn't feel grief about the loss of god - rejecting god actually puts you in a better place than you were before.

Yes. Seek two or three therapists. And then settle on the one who insists on honesty the most, and catches you in lies and equivocations most often. That's who's gonna help you engage in the honest, painful self evaluation required for healing.

I am gay, and Ayn Rand's opinions on the morality of homosexuality don't affect my self esteem too much. Either she learned to accept that being gay is not immoral and was right, or she didn't and she was wrong.
My curiosity is academic. It's a frequently asked question from non-Oists and students, and I've heard many conflicting answers on the subject so I'd like to collect evidence and see if I can get to an accurate answer. 
Objectivism has taught me how to think, not what to think.
Thanks for the concern.

Why add the second part? Why say "and without giving something of equal value in exchange?" What is "equal value" anyways; who decides if a fork is equal to two dollars or one, and if they are given "equal value" it still ignores the fact that their property is taken without their consent.

My response would be to ask him to establish that they are victims. And if they are victims: victims of what and by whom?
 
The fact that someone was not born into "good families or with better brains" is not the fault of someone that was born into good families or with better brains.
 
It just is -- so how does he establish that these people have a right to their money?
 
Don't get me wrong -- there are victims. Poor people are victim to the minimum wage laws and the welfare programs, for example. But, I don't think that is what he is getting at. I think he is just talking about some people being born superior to others, and, therefore, it is the responsibility of the people with superior qualities or better situations to take care of them. 
 
His argument is essentially: You are born smart, I am born not as smart, therefore, I am entitled to your money to make right this injustice.
 
But justice doesn't apply to things that just are -- i.e. in nature -- it applies to actions.

I think it is good, in essence. I think a 5 year old might not know these terms (to name a few): blacksmith, moccasins, grain, or even cattle. I think you can explain it using things he deals with on a daily basis, which also will help concretize what you are trying to explain. For example, instead of moccasins, use a pen, or, instead of grain, use a paperclip. It will help him visualize it.

An artichoke's being delicious to person X is a fact.
 
It is true. PERIOD.
 
 
An artichoke's being somehow intrinsically "delicious" absent a taster is simply not possible.
 
 
Deliciousness is not an intrinsic property of an artichoke it is more of a designation of a state of a relationship between the artichoke and any individual.
 
Conflating the invalid concept of intrinsic deliciousness and the actual relational nature of deliciousness is what may be confusing some people.
 
The existence of the relationship is factual, how the artichoke reacts with the perceptual, and "preferential taste" apparatus of an individual is a fact.  Inherent/intrinsic "deliciousness" is not.
 
 
To make a statement "implying" that "deliciousness" IS an inherent quality of things is an error.

Not necessarily. Bad smells are objectively disgusting. So is the sight of fecal matter, or rotting organic materials in trash. Objective means there is a rational reason to be disgusted by them. The government should legislate against them if there are public spaces, and the Courts should intervene if someone is exposing a neighboring property owner.
Nude people, on the other hand, aren't objectively disgusting. You have no rational reason to be disgusted by them. You should re-think your subjective preference, try and be more rational about it.

The government also shouldn't prevent me from being nude, be it in public, or on land I own that's in sight of neighbors, for the same reason.

P.S. As far as this whole "it's subjective, therefor I don't have to think about it rationally" argument: Arbitrarily (or rather, without knowing the real reason) picking harmless things to be afraid of or disgusted by is irrational. You're right, it's subjective, but it's subjective because you haven't tried to apply reason to the issue, not because it's impossible or unnecessary to do so.

Reason can always be applied, to everything. Sometimes it's not necessary to bother, because it doesn't matter (like with "I don't like the color orange" or "I find spiders icky"), and in that case I'll buy the "whatever, who cares, it's just a subjective preference" argument, but in this case it is necessary to apply reason to the issue. The disgust/fear of nudity is rooted in premises accepted without judgment, due to peer pressure in a religiously dominated culture. They're not inconsequential. They affect you, and people around you.

None -- only as an extension of property rights.

This is so silly.

This is so silly.

Another random rant. I don't have any questions for you -- I almost regret asking you anything in the first place. But, your evasion and rant-like posts does highlight the nonsensical, dogmatic nature of most of your posts.

I don't think sex is even great without some long-term ambitions or at least some personal connection. Not necessarily marriage, but at minimum: "I esteem this person, I enjoy this person's company, and want to see where it goes."
 
The issue is attempting to make sex a purely sensational experience -- it can't be done. Sex necessarily involves the mind -- whether that be your evaluation of the person -- or -- the setting in which the sex is taking place (e.g. behind a dumpster vs. in a comfy bed, or in front of your grandparents vs. alone in your bedroom). Your mind affects how good that sex feels.
 
So, I think you generally have the right attitude towards sex, especially the fact that you'll have more fun experimenting with someone you actually care about. I would just say that I think you need to loosen up a bit -- why does this woman need to be a "thinker"?  By thinker, I assume you mean philosophically. Does a dancer need to date a dancer? You can find value and good in all types of people -- so I suggest not shutting everyone out just because they don't know what words like "epistemology" mean. 

I had sex and I wasn't awkward my first time.
 
I think that the issue is attempting to live up to a warped view of relationships purported by Rand. I actually am more attracted to the people that are different than I am. I'd hate to date an intellectual, because life would be so boring. There is only so much I can stand talking about ideas. I like people that bring a different aspect to my life that the intellectual side is missing. But, the person, in essence, has to be good, funny, and makes my life enjoyable (as well as me theirs).
 
But, I'd still ask, because the above may be an unfair response to you: What values are you looking for, specifically? 

Lol I laughed pretty hard     

Here is a picture of supermodel, Adriana Lima.
 
 
Question - Is Adriana Lima physically attractive?
 
Answer - That's impossible to know, unless she states her core philosophical values.

http://www.amazon.com/Uncle-Sam-Cant-Count-Investments/dp/0062292692/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0
 


 
Author is Dr. Burton Fulsom -- who is an Economic-History Professor at Hillsdale College. He was also the author of Myth of the Robber Barons.
 
I've been waiting for a book that gave a historical account of government "investments". Looks pretty interesting. Comes out April 15th.

This article (a free example from the Objective Standard) I find quite a good one.  Starts at the start and clarifies some of the tricky parts: 
 
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights.asp

For both of these, the context change doesn't just falsify the conclusion, it also falsifies the premise, making the deduction faulty. They're not examples of reaching a false conclusion from a true premise, they're examples of two separate attempts at deduction, in two separate contexts: first deduction correct, second faulty. 
 
In the first context, Socrates is dead, therefor the deduction is correct. In the second one, he's alive, therefor the premise is false. Same with thenelli's example: in the first context, we're talking about a world where there are no work obligations, so the premise and conclusion are both true. In the second context, the premise is false because sometimes you should respond with friendliness to someone who yells at you.
 
Deductions can only be made in a specific context. What is true in one context may not be true in another, so of course anything deduced from it might be false as well. Of course if you change the context, you can reach false conclusions. But you do so by making the premise false, not deduction itself.

How are they different, can you make it more concrete?

Excerpts are now available - http://www.how-we-know.com/Excerpts-list.htm
 
Bill